Barizza's Studies of Cicero
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY . PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91125 BARZIZZA'S STUDIES OF CICERO G. W. Pigman III HUMANITIES WORKING PAPER 55 December 1980 Abstract for Barzizza's Studies of Cicero Before Barzizza's claim to be the father of Ciceronianism can be fruitfully discussed we must know more about his own work with Cicero. This paper offers a first contribution to such a reexamination by calling attention to three little known works: 1) his commentary on figures of speech and thought from the Ad Herennium, 2) his 1420 lectures on the speeches, 3) his biography of Cicero. The paper also prunes Barzizza's bibliography of several commentaries which he is recently supposed to have written and which under analysis prove to be ghosts. The main part of the paper discusses the life of Cicero (which is here edited for the first time), in particular its relation to its sources. Barzizza's Studies of Cicero Even in his own day Barzizza was known for his work with Cicero, espcially for his part in disseminating the Lodi manuscript of the rhetorical works. In a famous letter which captures the enthusiam of that discovery and remains an impressive tribute to Barzizza even when one remembers that the writer is requesting a favor and thus wishes to make his correspondent "benevolentem" Guarino says: Gratulati sumus et laudi et sapientiae tuae quem ab diis manibus vel verius Elysiis campis renascens ad superos Cicero primum in terris delegit hospitem; quod re quoque ipsa augurari licuerat. Quem enim potius quam te Cicero ipse deligeret, cuius ductu atque auspiciis amatur legitur et per Italorum gymnasia summa cum gloria volitat?l Another extravagant commendation of Barzizza's service and devotion to Cicero appears in the inaugural lecture which Antonio da Rho delivered in Milan after assuming the chair of rhetoric which Barzizza occupied towards the end of his life. Antonio lists several contemporaries worthy of imitation and mentions Barzizza last: tamen abolitum exactissimae cum eloquentiae tum doctrinae virum, Gasparinum Pergamensem, qui, ut aiunt, Ciceronem ipsum ita menti, ita memoriae commendarat, ut vel exstinctum ipse ex integro ilIum suscitare et in lucem afferre quidem potuisset.2 The brief references to Barzizza in Flavio Biondo's Italia illustrata 2 and Marcantonio Sabellico's De latinae linguae reparatione focus on his involvement with the Lodi manuscript.) Modern scholarship still associates Barzizza with Cicero. Ever since Sabbadini dubbed him "il vero apostolo del ciceronianismo," a reference to Barzizza and Ciceronianism has become de rigueur. Sabbadini was careful to point out that he did not know what principle of imitation Barzizza espoused, but deduced from a sentence in De compositione that he allowed "una certa liberta." He went on to show that Barzizza's own style, especially in the familiar letters, did not smack of Ciceronian purism. He knew what some later writers seem to have forgotten--that Barzizza is not the model for Erasmus' Nosoponus.4 I do not wish to reconsider the question of Barzizza's place in the history of Ciceronianism except to make two brief observations. First, in his treatise on imitation Barzizza once erects Cicero as sole model ("Qui vult imitari Ciceronem non relinquat"), often mentions Cicero as one model among others, and sometimes seems to prefer Cicero without excluding other models. My sense is that Barzizza thinks Cicero most deserving of imitation, but does not wish to restrict imitation to Cicero alone. In any event the lack of consistency shows that Barzizza had not adopted a rigid Ciceronian position.5 Second, in a letter of uncertain date and recipient Barzizza defends the eclecticism of his studies: Proponas tibi hominem qui se optet bonum esse artificem, sed pauperrimum, qui prorsus careat instrumentis ad illam ipsam artem necessariis: quid tunc proderit ei ars? Certe nihil. Itidem 3 mihi: quid mihi prodesset Cicero sine Prisciano et Terentio et ceteris poetis? Quid Priscianus sine Cicerone et Terentio? Quid denique Terentius sine Cicerone et Prisciano? Sane nihil. Quare non tunc est occupatus sensus circa plura, quia diversa, quando ea sunt unum. 6 This is not the statement of a strict Ciceronian. Before someone can undertake a reassessment of Ciceronianism and Barzizza's place in it, we need to know more about Barzizza's studies of Cicero. At present we know quite a bit about his work on De oratore, but very little about anything else.7 Before turning to Barzizza's Vita Marci Tulli Ciceronis, I would like to say a few words about commentaries recently attributed to Barzizza which I believe he never wrote, his commentary on Ad Herennium 4.19-68, and his 1420 lectures on Cicero's orations. I In the most comprehensive study of Barzizza yet to appear R. G • G• Mercer ass~gns· ten commentar~es. to h'1S sub' Ject. 8 Among them are commentaries on Cicero's De amicitia and De senectute, preserved in Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, V C 11, ff. 23r-41v. Nowhere in his correspondence does Barzizza mention that he is commenting on these two works, although he does request copies of older commentaries on them while he is trying to obtain another on De officiis from Enrico Veronese (Opera, pp. 190-191). More significantly the commentaries are not attributed to Barzizza in the manuscript, although the prefixed parchment title page is misleading: 9 4 Synonima Cicero orthograph. Gasparini Comm. in Cicero de Amicitia et senectute. Nonius Marcellus. On first glance it might appear that the commentaries are attributed to Barzizza, but actually "Gasparini" goes with "orthograph." Whoever wrote the title page was taking this piece of information from f. 21v, "Explicit orthographia M. gasparini cum punctis." In fact ff. 19r-21v do contain part of Barzizza's De punctis, although not a recognized version of the Orthographia but a series of lines beginning, "Sensus huius versus talis est." Three quarters of f. 21v and all of 22rv are blank. The commentary on De amicitia begins on f. 23r (the first page of a new signature) without title or indication of author: Circa hunc autorem vij sunt consideranda intentio auctoris utilitas operis ad quem scribat qua de causa scribat quo genere sermonis utatur cui parti philosophie supponatur quis sit libri titulus. The commentary is written in double columns and ends halfway down the first on f. 32r: In fine autem vos hortor ut virtute sine qua amicicia non est nihil prestabilius existimetis. At the top of the first column of f. 32v the scribe began to recopy the accessus to De amicitia, caught his error, left most of the column blank, and began the commentary on De senectute at the top of the next column: Duas etates esse legimus quas distinguntur per quedam attributa 5 commendibilia et quedam vituperalia scilicet iuventutem et senectutem. It ends near the top of the first column of f. 4lv: Hec habui [De senectute 86] accipit commeatum quia finem operis positurus. Complectum die sabati 30 mensis octobr. 1450 per iohannem de vernonaria vincentie.10 The last line disposes of Mercer's conjecture that the commentaries "were most probably in Barzizza's hand" (p. 8S). Nothing in them points to Barzizza's authorship. Mercer (p. 81) also assigns commentaries on De oratore, Epistolae ad familiares, and the Philippics to Barzizza. Since the only evidence for these commentaries is in Mazzuchelli and Simler- Barzizza never refers to them in his correspondence--I remain highly sceptical that they ever existed. Other commentaries certainly never existed, not even in intention. Mercer creates one on Seneca's tragedies out of a sentence from a letter by Barzizza to his son Niccolo, who had written that he was continuing to lecture on Terence and about to begin on Valerius Maximus: "Deinde a me requiris commentarios in tragoedias Senecae ac ipsas tragoedias; ais enim te Bolicitari a quibusdam ut sententias illarum eis exponas."ll Barzizza does not even add "meos" to "commentarios," as he does in a letter requesting the return of his commentary on Terence (Opera, p. 199). "Meos" leads Mercer to assign such a work to Barzizza, even though he admits it might indicate possession, not authorship. Since no other reference to a commentary on Terence exists, as opposed to the 6 excerpts from Plautus and Terence which Sabbadini identified long ago,12 this is very slender evidence for positing another commentary by Barzizza. The surest ghost in Mercer's list is a commentary on Pliny (pp. 72, 82). While trying to obtain a copy of the Natural History Barzizza writes to Giovanni Cornaro: Non poterit quin ex cumulo rerum quas dignissimus is auctor complexus fuit libris 36, multa possim elicere quae commentariolis meis commodissime inserantur. (Bertalot, II 95) Likewise when asking Facino Ventraria to help obtain Pliny: Sed adeo pernecessarius est sententiis summorum virorum a me commentandis, ut nullo modo videar posse negocium istud conficere, nisi ea quae pluribus locis ab hoc homine conscripta fuerunt, commentariis meis inseruero. (Bertalot, II 96) Barzizza says nothing about composing a commentary on Pliny; he wants the Natural History for another commentary--on Valerius Maximus as Cesare Colombo has convincingly shown.13 Colombo believes that Barzizza did not write a formal commentary on Valerius Maximus comparable to the one on Seneca's letters; instead the commentary consists of glosses in one of Barzizza's copies of Valerius, Vatican City, Vat. lat. 7229. No manuscript of a formal commentary surV1ves.. 14 Th e eV1·d ence f or a commentary on Dante 1S. aga1n. very slight. Around 1411 Barzizza expresses a hope he will lecture on Dante (Bertalot, II 61), and after moving to Milan he asks Guiniforte about a copy of Dante ''manibus ac digitis meis glossato" (II 88).